This is pretty standard when filing a claim against any government agency. No matter how legitimate and provable the claim, they will deny it. Once the claim has been denied you sue.

That's just how it works. The city/state has lawyers on staff who are salaried, so there's no real extra cost to them, and they know a good portion of the people complaining won't go through the effort of going to court. Plus it saves them from having to spend money investigating the high number of complaints that turn out to be frivolous.

NutWrench:According to White's denial letter, the state "is only liable for damages that are attributed to negligence by the department or an employee."

So who is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the tunnel, again?

If the bolt was within it's expected lifespan and was checked at the required intervals, then no one did anything wrong. That there was a materials failure could mean somebody was screwing around, but we don't live in Plato's World Of Forms, and sometimes things break without someone being either malicious or negligent.

Angela Lansbury's Merkin:This is pretty standard when filing a claim against any government agency. No matter how legitimate and provable the claim, they will deny it. Once the claim has been denied you sue.

That's just how it works. The city/state has lawyers on staff who are salaried, so there's no real extra cost to them, and they know a good portion of the people complaining won't go through the effort of going to court. Plus it saves them from having to spend money investigating the high number of complaints that turn out to be frivolous.

Honestly, it's generally SOP for any agency or company, government or not.

phalamir:NutWrench: According to White's denial letter, the state "is only liable for damages that are attributed to negligence by the department or an employee."

So who is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the tunnel, again?

If the bolt was within it's expected lifespan and was checked at the required intervals, then no one did anything wrong. That there was a materials failure could mean somebody was screwing around, but we don't live in Plato's World Of Forms, and sometimes things break without someone being either malicious or negligent.

MNguy:phalamir: NutWrench: According to White's denial letter, the state "is only liable for damages that are attributed to negligence by the department or an employee."

So who is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the tunnel, again?

If the bolt was within it's expected lifespan and was checked at the required intervals, then no one did anything wrong. That there was a materials failure could mean somebody was screwing around, but we don't live in Plato's World Of Forms, and sometimes things break without someone being either malicious or negligent.

MNguy:phalamir: NutWrench: According to White's denial letter, the state "is only liable for damages that are attributed to negligence by the department or an employee."

So who is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the tunnel, again?

If the bolt was within it's expected lifespan and was checked at the required intervals, then no one did anything wrong. That there was a materials failure could mean somebody was screwing around, but we don't live in Plato's World Of Forms, and sometimes things break without someone being either malicious or negligent.

It's called negligence per se

I went and looked that up, and the definition included that you had to break a rule. Unless the VDOT has a rule saying "it is physically impossible for materials failure to occur without one of us taking a hacksaw to it", you've still got to show they didn't follow maintenance procedures.

phalamir:MNguy: phalamir: NutWrench: According to White's denial letter, the state "is only liable for damages that are attributed to negligence by the department or an employee."

So who is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the tunnel, again?

If the bolt was within it's expected lifespan and was checked at the required intervals, then no one did anything wrong. That there was a materials failure could mean somebody was screwing around, but we don't live in Plato's World Of Forms, and sometimes things break without someone being either malicious or negligent.

It's called negligence per se

I went and looked that up, and the definition included that you had to break a rule. Unless the VDOT has a rule saying "it is physically impossible for materials failure to occur without one of us taking a hacksaw to it", you've still got to show they didn't follow maintenance procedures.

MNguy:phalamir: NutWrench: According to White's denial letter, the state "is only liable for damages that are attributed to negligence by the department or an employee."

So who is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the tunnel, again?

If the bolt was within it's expected lifespan and was checked at the required intervals, then no one did anything wrong. That there was a materials failure could mean somebody was screwing around, but we don't live in Plato's World Of Forms, and sometimes things break without someone being either malicious or negligent.

This problem calls for a tax increase. The only thing that can combat shoddy workmanship by politically connected construction companies is more money from the taxpayers for shoddy repairs by the same politically connected construction companies. The kickbacks must flow!

/I'm for Illinois, and I know how this cycle works.//If only there was some way to say they're doing it for the children.

Angela Lansbury's Merkin:This is pretty standard when filing a claim against any government agency. No matter how legitimate and provable the claim, they will deny it. Once the claim has been denied you sue.

My father had a run in with MoDOT. He hit a large pothole on the highway and damaged his car. When he tried to make a case with MoDOT, they denied the claim saying that they need to be notified of the hazard and be given 24 hours to fix it before they can be held accountable for any damages. My father ran in circles with them for a few days before he said he was going to take it to the attorney general. They were going to let him do that but then they called him back the next day to tell him they were willing to cut him a check.

Angela Lansbury's Merkin:This is pretty standard when filing a claim against any government agency. No matter how legitimate and provable the claim, they will deny it. Once the claim has been denied you sue.

That's just how it works. The city/state has lawyers on staff who are salaried, so there's no real extra cost to them, and they know a good portion of the people complaining won't go through the effort of going to court. Plus it saves them from having to spend money investigating the high number of complaints that turn out to be frivolous.

It has nothing to do with it being a public agency. Private companies do the same.

In fact, it is most likely that the state will have next to no involvement, it wll be between the state's insurance company and insurance company of the driver.

It's not the edits. It's the sound effects that are at least twice as loud as the voiceovers.

that's the point. Seriously, I suppose we should all be thankful that there is still such a thing as an investigative journalist in this day and age of corporate/government news release rehashing, but the MTV short attention span garbage is really unnecessary.

ReverendJynxed:YouPeopleAreCrazy: PapaChester: Stupid man should not have left the scene. Next time stop there, call the police, file a report on the scene.

You can't. You're in a tunnel, under dozens of feet of water. No phone reception.

Not only that but don't they have issues with people stopping in tunnels when their vehicles aren't wrecked/no personal injury?

I think most of the time the one's that end up stopping in the tunnel are either in an accident or have run out of gas.

My husband and I lived in Virginia Beach while he was stationed in Norfolk, and it SUCKS to get stuck in traffic at the HRBT...especially if you are one the bridge part and they have to close the farking tunnel because there is no place to turn around.

So whenever there is a vehicle that was involved in an accident or ran out of gas or otherwise can't move their shiat out of the tunnel, they shut it down to go tow the vehicles out.